Coffee v. Coleman
| Citation | 37 So. 499,85 Miss. 14 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1904 |
| Parties | CHAS. C. COFFEE v. SAMUEL S. COLEMAN ET AL |
November, 1904
FROM the chancery court of Lauderdale county HON. STONE DEAVOURS, Chancellor.
Reversed and remanded.
F. V. Brahan, for the appellant.
Williamson & Gilbert, for the appellees.
The bill is to confirm a tax title, is good on its face, and exhibits, as part of it, two conveyances from the tax collector which are in statutory form, and are by law prima facie evidence of the validity of the assessment and sale. Code 1892, §§ 1806, 3817. We are not favored with any brief for appellee, but suppose the demurrer was argued and sustained on the ground that, because the tax conveyances recite that the assessment was for the year 1890, the court had to assume that it was made under the act of March 8, 1888 (Laws 1888, p. 24, ch. 9), commonly known as the "Madison act, " which was declared by this court to be absolutely void for unconstitutionality in the case of Hawkins v. Mangum, 78 Miss. 97 (28 So. 872). This assumption is not necessarily to be made on a demurrer to a bill charging a valid assessment under the recitals in the conveyances before us. It may be that the void act was ignored, and that the county authorities had a valid assessment made under the then existing valid general law. Butts v. Ricks, 82 Miss. 533 (34 So. 354). If it shall develop that the assessment and sale were under the Madison act, then, of course, the sale was void, and complainant below must fail in his suit.
Reversed, demurrer overruled, and case remanded, with sixty days to appellee to answer after mandate filed below.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamner v. Yazoo Delta Lumber Co.
...under the Madison act was void. There was no question of the application of the Code provisions involved in this case. In Coffee v. Coleman, 85 Miss. 14, 37 So. 499, Scarborough v. Elmer, 87 Miss. 508, 40 So. 69, the decision in Hawkins v. Mangum was simply followed. There was no question o......
-
Gordon v. Smith
...... and the burden of proof is on the party attacking such sale. . . Mixon. v. Clivenger, 74 Miss. 67, 20 So. 148; Coffee v. Coleman, 85 Miss. 14, 37 So. 499; Aultman v. Fleming, 113 So. 201; State v. Wyoming Mfg. Co., 138 Miss. 249, 103 So. 12, 113 So. 201; Price. ......
-
Central Trust Co. of Illinois v. Haynes
......Clark v. Frank, 3 So. 531, 11 Cyc. 298; 2 Ohio Decision (Reprint 553; 3 West. L. Month. 632; Bolivar County v. Coleman, 71 Miss. 832,. 15 So. 104. . . In the. case of Hinton v. Perry County, 84 Miss. 534, 36 So. 565, this court, in discussing an order ... mentioned in his demurrer in the court below, were especially. raised by demurred in the following cases: Smith v. Denny, 62 Miss. 358; Coffee v. Coleman, 85. Miss. 14, 67 So. 499; Griffin v. Dogan, 48 Miss. 11;. Blecher v. Moon, 47 Miss. 613; and Meeks v. Whatlet, 48 Miss. 337. But this ......
-
Mitchell v. Tubb
...that this sale was made under the unconstitutional Madison Act and that his tax deed was worthless and void. The cases of Coffee v. Coleman, 85 Miss. 14 Butts v. Ricks, 28 Miss. 533, have no bearing or throw no light upon the question at bar and are not decisions in support of the appellee.......